Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2010-11-20T02:17:12Z

LanthanumK: /* Why the first instance? */

For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].

== Comments ==

:As a participant in the [[Conservative Bible Project]], I was amazed at how much insight into the world and into logic was gained from nearly every verse that I translated. This was the finest educational project that I have ever done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:17, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I did very little work, but from what I did do, I would agree with Andy's comments. My learning acquired in this matter is the very real latitude there is translating from the Greek and Aramaic and how a translation can reflect on what we hope to get out of it, and the purpose or the people and "address" we envision for it[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 12:40, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
:It's one of the finest educational works of the last century, in my opinion. I wish I had registered sooner to help! [[User:AlfredB|AlfredB]] 13:10, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
I discovered just how wildly different translations can be, and learned a fair bit about books I'd read little or superficially in the past. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:20, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I was astonished at how conservative [[St. Paul]] was in his letters. He was far to the right of modern conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:35, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

How do I go about helping out? -[[User:JasoT|JasoT]] 00:45, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:Pick any verse of the Bible you like, and either improve the translation that is there or propose a translation if it has not been done yet. I look forward to learning from your edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

== Why the first instance? ==

"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." What is wrong with this? As a believer in Biblical inerrancy I do not see why you would change the Bible to meet with "conservative thought patterns". What is the reason for removing this? --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 16:43, 17 November 2010 (EST)

: The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy does not resolve the issue of a few passages of doubtful authenticity. Your quoted passage has heavy liberal overtones, suggesting it is suspect. Scholarly analysis independently confirms that it is not authentic.

: What are the liberal overtones? First, note how often the media, movies, books and liberals love to quote that passage rather than other passages given far greater emphasis. The quoted phrase is false: many of Jesus's persecutors knew what they were doing. The quoted passage contradicts many other statements and facts about Jesus. Jesus did not forgive sins without repentance, but [[liberals]] like to pretend falsely that repentance is not necessary. Let's not be misled, and let's not mislead others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:41, 17 November 2010 (EST)

::The people who nailed him on the cross did not know that he was God; rather, they thought that he was a common criminal. Later, in Luke 23:47, the centurion realized that he was a righteous man, even though he still did not realize that he was God.

::The Bible should be translated according to the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew words, and it should ''not'' be translated by people who do not know God; that is why the modern Bible version are so messed up because people don't care about God's word and put in what they want, disregarding what it means. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 09:39, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::I'm a bit puzzled by this as well. Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but it sounds as if your standard for declaring a Bible passage to be illegitimate is that it is cited by liberals. That hardly seems sufficient. Furthermore, given that forgiveness is a major theme of the Gospels, isn't the line at least consistent with the rest of the text? --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 14:35, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::I definitely did not agree with it, but wanted to find out why. Conservatism should conform to the Bible, not the Bible to conservatism. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:16, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::: Folks, you're ducking the flaw in the passage: ''repentance is required for forgiveness''. It's [[liberal denial]] to pretend otherwise, and that's why liberals love this passage. Scholars agree it's not authentic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::::: Jesus forgives everyone of what they did to him on the earth; that is why there is another verse that says "Every blasphemy against the Son of man shall be forgiven" (paraphrase) This corresponds right. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 19:53, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::::: LK, perhaps you've been misled by [[liberals]]. Jesus talked more about [[Hell]] than about [[Heaven]]. Repentance is a prerequisite to forgiveness. The [[Bible]] is crystal clear about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:01, 18 November 2010 (EST)

You can forgive someone who wrongs you without them ever repenting of the wrong they did to you. There are more meanings to forgiveness than you think. The verse does not state that they automatically went to heaven. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:46, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:That was always my understanding of the passage, but even that's not really relevant to whether or not it belongs in the Bible. If you had some evidence that the verse was based on a bad translation/interpretation or was not present in the original Hebrew or Greek versions, this wouldn't be an issue. However, it appears to me (and again, correct me if I'm wrong) that you are rejecting it based on politics rather than validity or consistency. --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 16:01, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::Christ did not engage in spin, LanthanumK. Forgiveness is just that. The act of our forgiving shouldn't be predicated on what the person does or does not do.....that remains the province of the Lord to judge them. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:02, 19 November 2010 (EST)

LK, if you're not going to address my points, then this discussion has become unproductive. [[Jesus]] repeatedly emphasized that repentance is a pre-condition to forgiveness by [[God]], and Jesus repeatedly emphasized that Hell awaits those who don't repent. It's fine to forgive your neighbor, but your neighbor isn't going to obtain forgiveness from God without repentance. [[Liberal denial]] is working overtime to hide this truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:44, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:Why do you hide behind a smoke screen of conservatism? Jesus forgave them for what they did to him on the cross; since they did not repent, any sins after that would still send them to hell. Its [[conservative denial]] to pretend otherwise. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 21:17, 19 November 2010 (EST)

User talk:LanthanumK/Wikipedia contrast

2010-11-19T20:57:13Z

LanthanumK: /* My answers for your "disavantages" topic */

Interesting commentary, but it might prioritize the issues. How about this:

[[Wikipedia]]: mobocracy.
 [[Conservapedia]]: meritocracy.

Wikipedia: sometimes the worst of the public.
 Conservapedia: the [[best of the public]].

Wikipedia: pretending to be unbiased when it isn't.
 Conservapedia: says what it is, and doesn't try to fool anyone.

Wikipedia: a poor educational resource.
 Conservapedia: a superb educational resource.

Wikipedia: like the ''National Enquirer'', and visitors aren't enriched by the experience.
 Conservapedia: like the [[Bible]], and visitors are enriched by the experience.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:34, 17 November 2010 (EST)

:Mobocracy? I see admins trying to enforce the "NPOV". The policies do not change all the time, unlike a mobocracy. They have a few bad policies and make a whole lot of bad decisions from them. A mobocracy is a government of the mob--whatever the people want. Wikipedia has what a few admins and Jimbo Wales wants and forces that on everyone else, whether it is right or wrong (most of it is bad).
:This might seem like a "meritocracy", but I do not see many people here. Something here repels many people--I really don't know what. Both Wikipedia and Conservapedia attract good editors--but Wikipedia also attracts the low-moral people. Conservapedia seems to chop off the low-moral people a little too high.

:Yes, I know that many times this is at Wikipedia. Bad editors run much of the site.
:The editors here are better than the editors over there, but something repels many people away who may have valuable contributions.

:Neutral Point of View is arbitrarily set. It seems unbiased to a far-left viewer, but not to a conservative viewer. In my opinion, it is moderately liberal. Comparing it to this definitely makes it seem biased.
:It is described quite accurately here. The title defines the encyclopedia quite perfectly.

:I disagree here. I will list some facts that are in my immediate knowledge below.
:This is an educational resource but the chemistry areas do not seem very complete.

:I was mentally enriched by Wikipedia, but definitely not any deeper than chemical compounds and elements. Wikpiedia is a "wolf in wolf's clothing".
:I also saw some things here but, as I said before, morals are mixed with opinions. I think that there are more important things like morals to tell the world about, not conservative policies. I also want to make sure I don't run into any "wolves in sheep's clothing" here so I am careful with editors. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 10:06, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:: Point 1: Many things on Wikipedia are handled by the mobocracy, such as its biased deletion of pages. It's silly to pretend otherwise. Nothing like that happens on Conservapedia, which is a meritocracy.
:::I see that some pages are deleted, but I haven't gotten into any debates over politics-related articles yet. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:43, 19 November 2010 (EST)
:: Point 2: I think you agree with the essence of this point.

:: Point 3: You sdmit that Wikipedia "is moderately liberal." But why won't Wikipedia that? You agree that Conservapedia tells visitors up-front what it is.
:::From a liberal POV, it is rather conservative.
:: Point 4: You say you've learned things in chemistry from Wikipedia. Fine, but Wikipedia has no contemporary lectures with assignments and tests, grades no homework, and is typically not concise as required for education. We are all those things, and more.
:::Hmm... I don't know how much I can learn about science here. After a year of chemistry and the reading of just about every inorganic chemical compound article on Wikipedia, there is not much left more me to learn.
:: Point 5: Wikipedia doesn't wear "wolf's clothing." Rather, it pretends to be a neutral encyclopedia when in fact it features National Enquirer-like gossip, absurdly biased edits for the benefit of liberal goals, and much non-educational material.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:55, 18 November 2010 (EST)
:::It is neutral in its own right. As I said earlier, neutrality is arbitrary and is enforced by what Jimbo and a few admins decide.
*Tin(II) oxide is a blue-black solid that burns in air to make tin(IV) oxide. The (II) means that two electrons are taken from the tin ion. The (IV) means that four electrons are taken from the tin ion. There is an older system that would call them stannous oxide and stannic oxide.

*Heating of potassium hydroxide, potassium nitrate, and manganese dioxide will make green potassium manganate, which disproportionates in a basic? solution to make potassium permanganate and manganese dioxide.

*Tin(II) oxide hydrate is white, and it can be made by reacting tin(II) chloride with sodium hydroxide.

*Tin(II) chloride can be oxidized to tin(IV) chloride when in air for too long. Tin(II) sulfate cannot be oxidized, making it a convenient source of tin(II) ions.

*Iron(II) hydroxide is a dark green solid that can be made by reacting iron(II) chloride with sodium or ammonium hydroxide. It easily oxidizes to iron(III) oxide.

*Iron(II) oxidizes much more easily in a basic solution than an acidic solution. Iron(II) sulfate is greenish and was known as green vitriol.

*Copper can be dissolved by electrolysis in water to make copper(II) hydroxide, which can be dissolved in acids to make various copper(II) salts.

*Chromates are yellow, and dichromates are red. The red dichromates are reduced by alcohol to green chromium(III). This reaction was used in old alcohol breath analyzers.

*The chromates and dichromates are strong oxidizing agents in acidic solution.

*Dilute nitric acid makes nitric oxide when it reacts with copper; concentrated nitric acid makes nitrogen dioxide.

And much more.

==My answers for your "disavantages" topic==
'''''It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools.''''' (Ecclesiastes 7:5)

''Editing for new users and IP's is restricted. The bar for entrance is set a little too high.''
::We want good, honest people to become editors on the site. That is a bar which everyone has to meet, and it's not that difficult.
''A few hoaxes exist, although Wikipedia has hoaxes too.''
::People come into both sites and deliberately create false articles. That's called lying, and the people responsible get removed.
''It is less complete.''
::We have less people, and most of the new ones seem to want to get involved with politics rather than helping to create new articles, or add to existing articles...such as the subject of chemistry, for example.
''It mixes up morals (principles of right and wrong) with opinions (conservative v. liberal).''
::''A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left.'' (Ecclesiastes 10:2). You have seen what the left has done in this country; you've seen what it has done to Wikipedia. That is not an "opinion" that you could reduce it to; that is a fact. There's a major difference between what's right and what's wrong, and the verse from Ecclesiastes says it all in a nutshell. We are not going to hear the songs of fools in this site.
''It is more difficult to upload photos for legitimate users.''
::Conservapedia is a meritocracy; you have to earn the privilege via your edits.
''There are many negative things said here about Wikipedia. Some are not true, while others are so insignificant.''
::We highlight the wrongs of Wikipedia in hope that some over there would get the common sense to make corrections.
''It is not suitable for drastic growth due to the schisms that would be formed if the growth ensued.''
::It is very suitable for drastic growth, despite alleged schisms...which is just an opinion, anyway.

If you please, LanthanumK, identify what is specifically wrong here, and make concrete suggestions for improvement. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:57, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:First of all, there is a difference between a foolish decision and a sin. I believe that socialism is a foolish decision, while lying is a sin.

:Yes, I understand that you want good people, but I still think that the bar is set too high. It chases many people away.

:Some may be genuinely misled, although others are lying.

:It is still a problem with the site, and you admins may or may not want to fix it.

:It ''is'' an opinion. There is a political conservative, which tries to keep countries going in a good direction, and there is a religious conservative, which tries to follow the Bible.

:I think that the upload file should be granted to new users but revoked after one bad upload.

:The wrongs of Wikipedia? Photo bias ain't what I consider wrong.

:I could see many problems that will happen.

::In conclusion: This page shows that no encyclopedia is perfect. It is very difficult to get a balance between attracting new users and getting too much vandalism.

::I know that this is disorganized. I may create something more organized later. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 13:04, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::Note: This is just my point of view. I do not think that Conservapedia is bad because it does not allow you to upload, but I think that it is overly cautious. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 13:07, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::About the schism deal... What happens when you get a liberal admin? Is there a rule that all admins have to be politically conservative? What happens when many liberal editors flood in and start changing articles? I doubt that growth will be conservatives-only. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 13:17, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::We've had liberal Admins and have never had a rule against it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 18 November 2010 (EST)

===What someone else said===

I'm not sure I can thoroughly approve of Conservapedia. As you said, it seems to be rather more interested in politics than truthfulness and blending wiseness with purity. Even its name - "Conservapedia" not "Christpedia" - makes me slightly worried. In fact, Conservapedia often gives Christians a bad name. Even some Christians dislike it. I tried reading some of its criticisms on Wikipedia, and I was rather disappointed. Some parts of Wikipedia, as you know, I don't agree with - like its policy about being completely uncensored, or speaking "neutrally" about certain sins - but most of the criticisms on there were biased and based more on prejudice than fact, and illogically worded. I felt myself blush for it when I heard Wikipedians laughing scornfully at it, and what was worse, the laughter had justice in it. I'm not quite comfortable in my mind with Conservapedia, and I wish there was a better and more trustworthy Christian encyclopedia out there. *sighs* There are so few things in the world that are wholly trustworthy these days.

[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:57, 19 November 2010 (EST)

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2010-11-19T20:46:57Z

LanthanumK: /* Why the first instance? */

For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].

== Comments ==

:As a participant in the [[Conservative Bible Project]], I was amazed at how much insight into the world and into logic was gained from nearly every verse that I translated. This was the finest educational project that I have ever done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:17, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I did very little work, but from what I did do, I would agree with Andy's comments. My learning acquired in this matter is the very real latitude there is translating from the Greek and Aramaic and how a translation can reflect on what we hope to get out of it, and the purpose or the people and "address" we envision for it[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 12:40, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
:It's one of the finest educational works of the last century, in my opinion. I wish I had registered sooner to help! [[User:AlfredB|AlfredB]] 13:10, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
I discovered just how wildly different translations can be, and learned a fair bit about books I'd read little or superficially in the past. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:20, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I was astonished at how conservative [[St. Paul]] was in his letters. He was far to the right of modern conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:35, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

How do I go about helping out? -[[User:JasoT|JasoT]] 00:45, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:Pick any verse of the Bible you like, and either improve the translation that is there or propose a translation if it has not been done yet. I look forward to learning from your edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

== Why the first instance? ==

"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." What is wrong with this? As a believer in Biblical inerrancy I do not see why you would change the Bible to meet with "conservative thought patterns". What is the reason for removing this? --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 16:43, 17 November 2010 (EST)

: The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy does not resolve the issue of a few passages of doubtful authenticity. Your quoted passage has heavy liberal overtones, suggesting it is suspect. Scholarly analysis independently confirms that it is not authentic.

: What are the liberal overtones? First, note how often the media, movies, books and liberals love to quote that passage rather than other passages given far greater emphasis. The quoted phrase is false: many of Jesus's persecutors knew what they were doing. The quoted passage contradicts many other statements and facts about Jesus. Jesus did not forgive sins without repentance, but [[liberals]] like to pretend falsely that repentance is not necessary. Let's not be misled, and let's not mislead others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:41, 17 November 2010 (EST)

::The people who nailed him on the cross did not know that he was God; rather, they thought that he was a common criminal. Later, in Luke 23:47, the centurion realized that he was a righteous man, even though he still did not realize that he was God.

::The Bible should be translated according to the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew words, and it should ''not'' be translated by people who do not know God; that is why the modern Bible version are so messed up because people don't care about God's word and put in what they want, disregarding what it means. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 09:39, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::I'm a bit puzzled by this as well. Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but it sounds as if your standard for declaring a Bible passage to be illegitimate is that it is cited by liberals. That hardly seems sufficient. Furthermore, given that forgiveness is a major theme of the Gospels, isn't the line at least consistent with the rest of the text? --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 14:35, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::I definitely did not agree with it, but wanted to find out why. Conservatism should conform to the Bible, not the Bible to conservatism. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:16, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::: Folks, you're ducking the flaw in the passage: ''repentance is required for forgiveness''. It's [[liberal denial]] to pretend otherwise, and that's why liberals love this passage. Scholars agree it's not authentic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::::: Jesus forgives everyone of what they did to him on the earth; that is why there is another verse that says "Every blasphemy against the Son of man shall be forgiven" (paraphrase) This corresponds right. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 19:53, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::::: LK, perhaps you've been misled by [[liberals]]. Jesus talked more about [[Hell]] than about [[Heaven]]. Repentance is a prerequisite to forgiveness. The [[Bible]] is crystal clear about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:01, 18 November 2010 (EST)

(unindent) You can forgive someone who wrongs you without them ever repenting of the wrong they did to you. There are more meanings to forgiveness than you think. The verse does not state that they automatically went to heaven. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:46, 19 November 2010 (EST)

User talk:LanthanumK/Wikipedia contrast

2010-11-19T20:43:27Z

LanthanumK:

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2010-11-19T00:53:50Z

LanthanumK: /* Why the first instance? */

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2010-11-18T20:16:51Z

LanthanumK: /* Why the first instance? */

Queen

2010-11-18T18:40:12Z

LanthanumK: Undo revision 828878 by ShmuelB (talk) possible vandalism

Can refer to:

*A woman who becomes ruler of a monarcy.
*A [[King|king's]] wife (queen consort).
*A female [[ant]] or other [[insect]].
*A successful [[British]] rock band.
*A [[playing card]] in a standard deck of cards which carries a picture of a queen.
*The most powerful piece in the game of [[chess]].
* A dominant woman in some field of activity.
*A flamboyant homosexual.

[[Category:Disambiguation Pages]]
[[Category:Queens]]

Tin(II) sulfate

2010-11-18T18:18:36Z

LanthanumK: /* Preparation */

'''Tin(II) sulfate''', also known as '''stannous sulfate''', is a [[chemical compound]]. Its chemical formula is SnSO4. It contains [[tin]] and [[sulfate]] [[ion]]s. The tin is in its +2 [[oxidation state]].

==Properties==
Tin(II) sulfate is a white solid. It is one of the only tin(II) compounds that cannot be [[oxidation|oxidized]] to tin(IV). It reacts with [[base]]s to make [[tin(II) oxide]] hydrate, which is white.

==Preparation==
It is made by dissolving tin in [[sulfuric acid]]. Reacting [[copper sulfate]] with tin also makes tin(II) sulfate.

==Related pages==
*[[Tin(II) chloride]]
*[[Tin(IV) oxide]]

[[Category:Chemical Compounds]]

User talk:LanthanumK/Wikipedia contrast

2010-11-18T18:17:46Z

LanthanumK: /* My answers for your "disavantages" topic */

Interesting commentary, but it might prioritize the issues. How about this:

[[Wikipedia]]: mobocracy.
 [[Conservapedia]]: meritocracy.

Wikipedia: sometimes the worst of the public.
 Conservapedia: the [[best of the public]].

Wikipedia: pretending to be unbiased when it isn't.
 Conservapedia: says what it is, and doesn't try to fool anyone.

Wikipedia: a poor educational resource.
 Conservapedia: a superb educational resource.

Wikipedia: like the ''National Enquirer'', and visitors aren't enriched by the experience.
 Conservapedia: like the [[Bible]], and visitors are enriched by the experience.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:34, 17 November 2010 (EST)

:Mobocracy? I see admins trying to enforce the "NPOV". The policies do not change all the time, unlike a mobocracy. They have a few bad policies and make a whole lot of bad decisions from them. A mobocracy is a government of the mob--whatever the people want. Wikipedia has what a few admins and Jimbo Wales wants and forces that on everyone else, whether it is right or wrong (most of it is bad).
:This might seem like a "meritocracy", but I do not see many people here. Something here repels many people--I really don't know what. Both Wikipedia and Conservapedia attract good editors--but Wikipedia also attracts the low-moral people. Conservapedia seems to chop off the low-moral people a little too high.

:Yes, I know that many times this is at Wikipedia. Bad editors run much of the site.
:The editors here are better than the editors over there, but something repels many people away who may have valuable contributions.

:Neutral Point of View is arbitrarily set. It seems unbiased to a far-left viewer, but not to a conservative viewer. In my opinion, it is moderately liberal. Comparing it to this definitely makes it seem biased.
:It is described quite accurately here. The title defines the encyclopedia quite perfectly.

:I disagree here. I will list some facts that are in my immediate knowledge below.
:This is an educational resource but the chemistry areas do not seem very complete.

:I was mentally enriched by Wikipedia, but definitely not any deeper than chemical compounds and elements. Wikpiedia is a "wolf in wolf's clothing".
:I also saw some things here but, as I said before, morals are mixed with opinions. I think that there are more important things like morals to tell the world about, not conservative policies. I also want to make sure I don't run into any "wolves in sheep's clothing" here so I am careful with editors. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 10:06, 18 November 2010 (EST)

*Tin(II) oxide is a blue-black solid that burns in air to make tin(IV) oxide. The (II) means that two electrons are taken from the tin ion. The (IV) means that four electrons are taken from the tin ion. There is an older system that would call them stannous oxide and stannic oxide.

*Heating of potassium hydroxide, potassium nitrate, and manganese dioxide will make green potassium manganate, which disproportionates in a basic? solution to make potassium permanganate and manganese dioxide.

*Tin(II) oxide hydrate is white, and it can be made by reacting tin(II) chloride with sodium hydroxide.

*Tin(II) chloride can be oxidized to tin(IV) chloride when in air for too long. Tin(II) sulfate cannot be oxidized, making it a convenient source of tin(II) ions.

*Iron(II) hydroxide is a dark green solid that can be made by reacting iron(II) chloride with sodium or ammonium hydroxide. It easily oxidizes to iron(III) oxide.

*Iron(II) oxidizes much more easily in a basic solution than an acidic solution. Iron(II) sulfate is greenish and was known as green vitriol.

*Copper can be dissolved by electrolysis in water to make copper(II) hydroxide, which can be dissolved in acids to make various copper(II) salts.

*Chromates are yellow, and dichromates are red. The red dichromates are reduced by alcohol to green chromium(III). This reaction was used in old alcohol breath analyzers.

*The chromates and dichromates are strong oxidizing agents in acidic solution.

*Dilute nitric acid makes nitric oxide when it reacts with copper; concentrated nitric acid makes nitrogen dioxide.

And much more.

==My answers for your "disavantages" topic==
'''''It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools.''''' (Ecclesiastes 7:5)

''Editing for new users and IP's is restricted. The bar for entrance is set a little too high.''
::We want good, honest people to become editors on the site. That is a bar which everyone has to meet, and it's not that difficult.
''A few hoaxes exist, although Wikipedia has hoaxes too.''
::People come into both sites and deliberately create false articles. That's called lying, and the people responsible get removed.
''It is less complete.''
::We have less people, and most of the new ones seem to want to get involved with politics rather than helping to create new articles, or add to existing articles...such as the subject of chemistry, for example.
''It mixes up morals (principles of right and wrong) with opinions (conservative v. liberal).''
::''A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left.'' (Ecclesiastes 10:2). You have seen what the left has done in this country; you've seen what it has done to Wikipedia. That is not an "opinion" that you could reduce it to; that is a fact. There's a major difference between what's right and what's wrong, and the verse from Ecclesiastes says it all in a nutshell. We are not going to hear the songs of fools in this site.
''It is more difficult to upload photos for legitimate users.''
::Conservapedia is a meritocracy; you have to earn the privilege via your edits.
''There are many negative things said here about Wikipedia. Some are not true, while others are so insignificant.''
::We highlight the wrongs of Wikipedia in hope that some over there would get the common sense to make corrections.
''It is not suitable for drastic growth due to the schisms that would be formed if the growth ensued.''
::It is very suitable for drastic growth, despite alleged schisms...which is just an opinion, anyway.

If you please, LanthanumK, identify what is specifically wrong here, and make concrete suggestions for improvement. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:57, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:First of all, there is a difference between a foolish decision and a sin. I believe that socialism is a foolish decision, while lying is a sin.

:Yes, I understand that you want good people, but I still think that the bar is set too high. It chases many people away.

:Some may be genuinely misled, although others are lying.

:It is still a problem with the site, and you admins may or may not want to fix it.

:It ''is'' an opinion. There is a political conservative, which tries to keep countries going in a good direction, and there is a religious conservative, which tries to follow the Bible.

:I think that the upload file should be granted to new users but revoked after one bad upload.

:The wrongs of Wikipedia? Photo bias ain't what I consider wrong.

:I could see many problems that will happen.

::In conclusion: This page shows that no encyclopedia is perfect. It is very difficult to get a balance between attracting new users and getting too much vandalism.

::I know that this is disorganized. I may create something more organized later. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 13:04, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::Note: This is just my point of view. I do not think that Conservapedia is bad because it does not allow you to upload, but I think that it is overly cautious. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 13:07, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::About the schism deal... What happens when you get a liberal admin? Is there a rule that all admins have to be politically conservative? What happens when many liberal editors flood in and start changing articles? I doubt that growth will be conservatives-only. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 13:17, 18 November 2010 (EST)

User:LanthanumK/Wikipedia contrast

2010-11-18T18:10:40Z

LanthanumK:

This is a page of comparisons and contrasts between ''English'' Wikipedia and Conservapedia. As I am a user on both sites, I can see the issues with both. This does not include Simple English Wikipedia.

Summary: Both Wikipedia and Conservapedia have certain benefits and downfalls. I hope that people on this site can use this information to improve this sight.

==Benefits of Wikipedia==
*It is easier to edit articles as a new user.
*It is not so politically-oriented. It has a slight liberal bias while this site has a strongly conservative bias. There are many complete articles on science-related topics, for example.
*It is more complete.
*It is easier to upload photos.
*There is a bigger drive for complete and high-quality articles.

==Disadvantages of Wikipedia==
*It is not censored, showing bad pictures and bad language. One of the biggest users of profanity is a self-professed "devout Christian".
*There is much more vandalism than at Conservapedia. Hoaxes are relatively abundant, although there are not many less hoaxes over here.
*Neutral Point of View is arbitrary and a few editors make what they believe "neutral".
*Assume Good Faith is used as a hammer to beat people over the head in debates.
*Arguments in many places can be very petty.
*Many (though not all) articles about popular culture are rather useless.

===Hoax===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithium_nitrate&diff=351057656&oldid=316853102 Potassium permanganate is a strong oxidizing agent and cannot reduce nitrate to ammonia. Sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) does not contain any nitrate or lithium. Lithium nitrate, an oxidizing agent, cannot reduce water to hydrogen.]

==Benefits of Conservapedia==
*There is much less vandalism here.
*It has more family-friendly content.
*It has both conservative and liberal viewpoints in some articles which is more NPOV than Wikipedia.
*Petty debates over Manual of Style changes or what constitutes medical advice or whether people should notify others of grammatical errors in posts are nonexistent.
*Almost all of the admins have a similar viewpoint, so wheelwarring is nonexistant.
*More friendly debates are here. Opinions are welcome there.
*The rules here are much more clear and straight.

==Disadvantages of Conservapedia==
*Editing for new users and IP's is restricted. The bar for entrance is set a little too high.
*A few hoaxes exist, although Wikipedia has hoaxes too.
*It is less complete.
*It mixes up morals (principles of right and wrong) with opinions (conservative v. liberal).
*It is more difficult to upload photos for legitimate users.
*There are many negative things said here about Wikipedia. Some are not true, while others are so insignificant.
*It is not suitable for drastic growth due to the schisms that would be formed if the growth ensued.

===Hoax===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Transition_metal&diff=prev&oldid=330929 Transition metals are not strong oxidizing agents; some are moderately strong reducing agents while others are weak reducing agents.]

==Similarities==
*Jimbo Wales influences everyone with his atheistic, liberal viewpoint; Andy Schlafly influences everyone with his religious, conservative viewpoint.
*POV debates are existent in both.
*A certain level of arbitrariness is present in the blocks of some people who do not blatantly violate the Commandments. (I do not have any names to name.)
*They both claim to be high quality but aren't as high as they claim.

User talk:LanthanumK/Wikipedia contrast

2010-11-18T18:07:45Z

LanthanumK: /* My answers for your "disavantages" topic */

Interesting commentary, but it might prioritize the issues. How about this:

[[Wikipedia]]: mobocracy.
 [[Conservapedia]]: meritocracy.

Wikipedia: sometimes the worst of the public.
 Conservapedia: the [[best of the public]].

Wikipedia: pretending to be unbiased when it isn't.
 Conservapedia: says what it is, and doesn't try to fool anyone.

Wikipedia: a poor educational resource.
 Conservapedia: a superb educational resource.

Wikipedia: like the ''National Enquirer'', and visitors aren't enriched by the experience.
 Conservapedia: like the [[Bible]], and visitors are enriched by the experience.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:34, 17 November 2010 (EST)

:Mobocracy? I see admins trying to enforce the "NPOV". The policies do not change all the time, unlike a mobocracy. They have a few bad policies and make a whole lot of bad decisions from them. A mobocracy is a government of the mob--whatever the people want. Wikipedia has what a few admins and Jimbo Wales wants and forces that on everyone else, whether it is right or wrong (most of it is bad).
:This might seem like a "meritocracy", but I do not see many people here. Something here repels many people--I really don't know what. Both Wikipedia and Conservapedia attract good editors--but Wikipedia also attracts the low-moral people. Conservapedia seems to chop off the low-moral people a little too high.

:Yes, I know that many times this is at Wikipedia. Bad editors run much of the site.
:The editors here are better than the editors over there, but something repels many people away who may have valuable contributions.

:Neutral Point of View is arbitrarily set. It seems unbiased to a far-left viewer, but not to a conservative viewer. In my opinion, it is moderately liberal. Comparing it to this definitely makes it seem biased.
:It is described quite accurately here. The title defines the encyclopedia quite perfectly.

:I disagree here. I will list some facts that are in my immediate knowledge below.
:This is an educational resource but the chemistry areas do not seem very complete.

:I was mentally enriched by Wikipedia, but definitely not any deeper than chemical compounds and elements. Wikpiedia is a "wolf in wolf's clothing".
:I also saw some things here but, as I said before, morals are mixed with opinions. I think that there are more important things like morals to tell the world about, not conservative policies. I also want to make sure I don't run into any "wolves in sheep's clothing" here so I am careful with editors. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 10:06, 18 November 2010 (EST)

*Tin(II) oxide is a blue-black solid that burns in air to make tin(IV) oxide. The (II) means that two electrons are taken from the tin ion. The (IV) means that four electrons are taken from the tin ion. There is an older system that would call them stannous oxide and stannic oxide.

*Heating of potassium hydroxide, potassium nitrate, and manganese dioxide will make green potassium manganate, which disproportionates in a basic? solution to make potassium permanganate and manganese dioxide.

*Tin(II) oxide hydrate is white, and it can be made by reacting tin(II) chloride with sodium hydroxide.

*Tin(II) chloride can be oxidized to tin(IV) chloride when in air for too long. Tin(II) sulfate cannot be oxidized, making it a convenient source of tin(II) ions.

*Iron(II) hydroxide is a dark green solid that can be made by reacting iron(II) chloride with sodium or ammonium hydroxide. It easily oxidizes to iron(III) oxide.

*Iron(II) oxidizes much more easily in a basic solution than an acidic solution. Iron(II) sulfate is greenish and was known as green vitriol.

*Copper can be dissolved by electrolysis in water to make copper(II) hydroxide, which can be dissolved in acids to make various copper(II) salts.

*Chromates are yellow, and dichromates are red. The red dichromates are reduced by alcohol to green chromium(III). This reaction was used in old alcohol breath analyzers.

*The chromates and dichromates are strong oxidizing agents in acidic solution.

*Dilute nitric acid makes nitric oxide when it reacts with copper; concentrated nitric acid makes nitrogen dioxide.

And much more.

==My answers for your "disavantages" topic==
'''''It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools.''''' (Ecclesiastes 7:5)

''Editing for new users and IP's is restricted. The bar for entrance is set a little too high.''
::We want good, honest people to become editors on the site. That is a bar which everyone has to meet, and it's not that difficult.
''A few hoaxes exist, although Wikipedia has hoaxes too.''
::People come into both sites and deliberately create false articles. That's called lying, and the people responsible get removed.
''It is less complete.''
::We have less people, and most of the new ones seem to want to get involved with politics rather than helping to create new articles, or add to existing articles...such as the subject of chemistry, for example.
''It mixes up morals (principles of right and wrong) with opinions (conservative v. liberal).''
::''A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left.'' (Ecclesiastes 10:2). You have seen what the left has done in this country; you've seen what it has done to Wikipedia. That is not an "opinion" that you could reduce it to; that is a fact. There's a major difference between what's right and what's wrong, and the verse from Ecclesiastes says it all in a nutshell. We are not going to hear the songs of fools in this site.
''It is more difficult to upload photos for legitimate users.''
::Conservapedia is a meritocracy; you have to earn the privilege via your edits.
''There are many negative things said here about Wikipedia. Some are not true, while others are so insignificant.''
::We highlight the wrongs of Wikipedia in hope that some over there would get the common sense to make corrections.
''It is not suitable for drastic growth due to the schisms that would be formed if the growth ensued.''
::It is very suitable for drastic growth, despite alleged schisms...which is just an opinion, anyway.

If you please, LanthanumK, identify what is specifically wrong here, and make concrete suggestions for improvement. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:57, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:First of all, there is a difference between a foolish decision and a sin. I believe that socialism is a foolish decision, while lying is a sin.

:Yes, I understand that you want good people, but I still think that the bar is set too high. It chases many people away.

:Some may be genuinely misled, although others are lying.

:It is still a problem with the site, and you admins may or may not want to fix it.

:It ''is'' an opinion. There is a political conservative, which tries to keep countries going in a good direction, and there is a religious conservative, which tries to follow the Bible.

:I think that the upload file should be granted to new users but revoked after one bad upload.

:The wrongs of Wikipedia? Photo bias ain't what I consider wrong.

:I could see many problems that will happen.

::In conclusion: This page shows that no encyclopedia is perfect. It is very difficult to get a balance between attracting new users and getting too much vandalism.

::I know that this is disorganized. I may create something more organized later. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 13:04, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::Note: This is just my point of view. I do not think that Conservapedia is bad because it does not allow you to upload, but I think that it is overly cautious. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 13:07, 18 November 2010 (EST)

User:LanthanumK/Wikipedia contrast

2010-11-18T18:05:15Z

LanthanumK: /* Similarities */

This is a page of comparisons and contrasts between ''English'' Wikipedia and Conservapedia. As I am a user on both sites, I can see the issues with both. This does not include Simple English Wikipedia.

==Benefits of Wikipedia==
*It is easier to edit articles as a new user.
*It is not so politically-oriented. It has a slight liberal bias while this site has a strongly conservative bias. There are many complete articles on science-related topics, for example.
*It is more complete.
*It is easier to upload photos.
*There is a bigger drive for complete and high-quality articles.

==Disadvantages of Wikipedia==
*It is not censored, showing bad pictures and bad language. One of the biggest users of profanity is a self-professed "devout Christian".
*There is much more vandalism than at Conservapedia. Hoaxes are relatively abundant, although there are not many less hoaxes over here.
*Neutral Point of View is arbitrary and a few editors make what they believe "neutral".
*Assume Good Faith is used as a hammer to beat people over the head in debates.
*Arguments in many places can be very petty.
*Many (though not all) articles about popular culture are rather useless.

===Hoax===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithium_nitrate&diff=351057656&oldid=316853102 Potassium permanganate is a strong oxidizing agent and cannot reduce nitrate to ammonia. Sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) does not contain any nitrate or lithium. Lithium nitrate, an oxidizing agent, cannot reduce water to hydrogen.]

==Benefits of Conservapedia==
*There is much less vandalism here.
*It has more family-friendly content.
*It has both conservative and liberal viewpoints in some articles which is more NPOV than Wikipedia.
*Petty debates over Manual of Style changes or what constitutes medical advice or whether people should notify others of grammatical errors in posts are nonexistent.
*Almost all of the admins have a similar viewpoint, so wheelwarring is nonexistant.
*More friendly debates are here. Opinions are welcome there.
*The rules here are much more clear and straight.

==Disadvantages of Conservapedia==
*Editing for new users and IP's is restricted. The bar for entrance is set a little too high.
*A few hoaxes exist, although Wikipedia has hoaxes too.
*It is less complete.
*It mixes up morals (principles of right and wrong) with opinions (conservative v. liberal).
*It is more difficult to upload photos for legitimate users.
*There are many negative things said here about Wikipedia. Some are not true, while others are so insignificant.
*It is not suitable for drastic growth due to the schisms that would be formed if the growth ensued.

===Hoax===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Transition_metal&diff=prev&oldid=330929 Transition metals are not strong oxidizing agents; some are moderately strong reducing agents while others are weak reducing agents.]

==Similarities==
*Jimbo Wales influences everyone with his atheistic, liberal viewpoint; Andy Schlafly influences everyone with his religious, conservative viewpoint.
*POV debates are existent in both.
*A certain level of arbitrariness is present in the blocks of some people who do not blatantly violate the Commandments. (I do not have any names to name.)
*They both claim to be high quality but aren't as high as they claim.

User talk:LanthanumK/Wikipedia contrast

2010-11-18T18:04:37Z

LanthanumK: /* My answers for your "disavantages" topic */

User:LanthanumK/Articles I created

2010-11-18T15:57:37Z

LanthanumK: some

Here are the articles I created here. This does not include redirects or disambiguation pages. It does not mean pages that I have expanded.

*[[Simple English Wikipedia]]
*[[Tin(II) oxide]]
*[[Alkali metal]]
*[[Oxidizing agent]]
*[[Reducing agent]]
*[[Metalloid]]
*[[Oxidation state]]
*[[Tin(II) sulfate]]
*[[Cobalt(II) carbonate]]
*[[Tin(IV) oxide]]

User:LanthanumK/Wikipedia contrast

2010-11-18T15:28:22Z

LanthanumK: /* Disadvantages of Conservapedia */

This is a page of comparisons and contrasts between ''English'' Wikipedia and Conservapedia. As I am a user on both sites, I can see the issues with both. This does not include Simple English Wikipedia.

==Benefits of Wikipedia==
*It is easier to edit articles as a new user.
*It is not so politically-oriented. It has a slight liberal bias while this site has a strongly conservative bias. There are many complete articles on science-related topics, for example.
*It is more complete.
*It is easier to upload photos.
*There is a bigger drive for complete and high-quality articles.

==Disadvantages of Wikipedia==
*It is not censored, showing bad pictures and bad language. One of the biggest users of profanity is a self-professed "devout Christian".
*There is much more vandalism than at Conservapedia. Hoaxes are relatively abundant, although there are not many less hoaxes over here.
*Neutral Point of View is arbitrary and a few editors make what they believe "neutral".
*Assume Good Faith is used as a hammer to beat people over the head in debates.
*Arguments in many places can be very petty.
*Many (though not all) articles about popular culture are rather useless.

===Hoax===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithium_nitrate&diff=351057656&oldid=316853102 Potassium permanganate is a strong oxidizing agent and cannot reduce nitrate to ammonia. Sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) does not contain any nitrate or lithium. Lithium nitrate, an oxidizing agent, cannot reduce water to hydrogen.]

==Benefits of Conservapedia==
*There is much less vandalism here.
*It has more family-friendly content.
*It has both conservative and liberal viewpoints in some articles which is more NPOV than Wikipedia.
*Petty debates over Manual of Style changes or what constitutes medical advice or whether people should notify others of grammatical errors in posts are nonexistent.
*Almost all of the admins have a similar viewpoint, so wheelwarring is nonexistant.
*More friendly debates are here. Opinions are welcome there.
*The rules here are much more clear and straight.

==Disadvantages of Conservapedia==
*Editing for new users and IP's is restricted. The bar for entrance is set a little too high.
*A few hoaxes exist, although Wikipedia has hoaxes too.
*It is less complete.
*It mixes up morals (principles of right and wrong) with opinions (conservative v. liberal).
*It is more difficult to upload photos for legitimate users.
*There are many negative things said here about Wikipedia. Some are not true, while others are so insignificant.
*It is not suitable for drastic growth due to the schisms that would be formed if the growth ensued.

===Hoax===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Transition_metal&diff=prev&oldid=330929 Transition metals are not strong oxidizing agents; some are moderately strong reducing agents while others are weak reducing agents.]

==Similarities==
*Jimbo Wales influences everyone with his atheistic, liberal viewpoint; Andy Schlafly influences everyone with his religious, conservative viewpoint.
*POV debates are existent in both.
*A certain level of arbitrariness is present in the blocks of some people who do not blatantly violate the Commandments. (I do not have any names to name.)
*They both claim to be high quality.

User:LanthanumK/Wikipedia contrast

2010-11-18T15:27:30Z

LanthanumK: /* Benefits of Conservapedia */ sorry for so many edits to this page

This is a page of comparisons and contrasts between ''English'' Wikipedia and Conservapedia. As I am a user on both sites, I can see the issues with both. This does not include Simple English Wikipedia.

==Benefits of Wikipedia==
*It is easier to edit articles as a new user.
*It is not so politically-oriented. It has a slight liberal bias while this site has a strongly conservative bias. There are many complete articles on science-related topics, for example.
*It is more complete.
*It is easier to upload photos.
*There is a bigger drive for complete and high-quality articles.

==Disadvantages of Wikipedia==
*It is not censored, showing bad pictures and bad language. One of the biggest users of profanity is a self-professed "devout Christian".
*There is much more vandalism than at Conservapedia. Hoaxes are relatively abundant, although there are not many less hoaxes over here.
*Neutral Point of View is arbitrary and a few editors make what they believe "neutral".
*Assume Good Faith is used as a hammer to beat people over the head in debates.
*Arguments in many places can be very petty.
*Many (though not all) articles about popular culture are rather useless.

===Hoax===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithium_nitrate&diff=351057656&oldid=316853102 Potassium permanganate is a strong oxidizing agent and cannot reduce nitrate to ammonia. Sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) does not contain any nitrate or lithium. Lithium nitrate, an oxidizing agent, cannot reduce water to hydrogen.]

==Benefits of Conservapedia==
*There is much less vandalism here.
*It has more family-friendly content.
*It has both conservative and liberal viewpoints in some articles which is more NPOV than Wikipedia.
*Petty debates over Manual of Style changes or what constitutes medical advice or whether people should notify others of grammatical errors in posts are nonexistent.
*Almost all of the admins have a similar viewpoint, so wheelwarring is nonexistant.
*More friendly debates are here. Opinions are welcome there.
*The rules here are much more clear and straight.

==Disadvantages of Conservapedia==
*Editing for new users and IP's is restricted. The bar for entrance is set a little too high.
*A few hoaxes exist, although Wikipedia has hoaxes too.
*It is less complete.
*It mixes up morals (principles of right and wrong) with opinions (conservative v. liberal).
*It is more difficult to upload photos for legitimate users.
*There are many negative things said here about Wikipedia. Some are not true, while others are so insignificant.

===Hoax===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Transition_metal&diff=prev&oldid=330929 Transition metals are not strong oxidizing agents; some are moderately strong reducing agents while others are weak reducing agents.]

==Similarities==
*Jimbo Wales influences everyone with his atheistic, liberal viewpoint; Andy Schlafly influences everyone with his religious, conservative viewpoint.
*POV debates are existent in both.
*A certain level of arbitrariness is present in the blocks of some people who do not blatantly violate the Commandments. (I do not have any names to name.)
*They both claim to be high quality.

User:LanthanumK/Wikipedia contrast

2010-11-18T15:26:34Z

LanthanumK: /* Disadvantages of Conservapedia */

This is a page of comparisons and contrasts between ''English'' Wikipedia and Conservapedia. As I am a user on both sites, I can see the issues with both. This does not include Simple English Wikipedia.

==Benefits of Wikipedia==
*It is easier to edit articles as a new user.
*It is not so politically-oriented. It has a slight liberal bias while this site has a strongly conservative bias. There are many complete articles on science-related topics, for example.
*It is more complete.
*It is easier to upload photos.
*There is a bigger drive for complete and high-quality articles.

==Disadvantages of Wikipedia==
*It is not censored, showing bad pictures and bad language. One of the biggest users of profanity is a self-professed "devout Christian".
*There is much more vandalism than at Conservapedia. Hoaxes are relatively abundant, although there are not many less hoaxes over here.
*Neutral Point of View is arbitrary and a few editors make what they believe "neutral".
*Assume Good Faith is used as a hammer to beat people over the head in debates.
*Arguments in many places can be very petty.
*Many (though not all) articles about popular culture are rather useless.

===Hoax===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithium_nitrate&diff=351057656&oldid=316853102 Potassium permanganate is a strong oxidizing agent and cannot reduce nitrate to ammonia. Sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) does not contain any nitrate or lithium. Lithium nitrate, an oxidizing agent, cannot reduce water to hydrogen.]

==Benefits of Conservapedia==
*There is much less vandalism here.
*It has more family-friendly content.
*It has both conservative and liberal viewpoints in some articles which is more NPOV than Wikipedia.
*Petty debates over Manual of Style changes or what constitutes medical advice or whether people should notify others of grammatical errors in posts are nonexistent.
*Almost all of the admins have a similar viewpoint, so wheelwarring is nonexistant.
*More friendly debates are here. Opinions are welcome there.

==Disadvantages of Conservapedia==
*Editing for new users and IP's is restricted. The bar for entrance is set a little too high.
*A few hoaxes exist, although Wikipedia has hoaxes too.
*It is less complete.
*It mixes up morals (principles of right and wrong) with opinions (conservative v. liberal).
*It is more difficult to upload photos for legitimate users.
*There are many negative things said here about Wikipedia. Some are not true, while others are so insignificant.

===Hoax===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Transition_metal&diff=prev&oldid=330929 Transition metals are not strong oxidizing agents; some are moderately strong reducing agents while others are weak reducing agents.]

==Similarities==
*Jimbo Wales influences everyone with his atheistic, liberal viewpoint; Andy Schlafly influences everyone with his religious, conservative viewpoint.
*POV debates are existent in both.
*A certain level of arbitrariness is present in the blocks of some people who do not blatantly violate the Commandments. (I do not have any names to name.)
*They both claim to be high quality.

User:LanthanumK/Wikipedia contrast

2010-11-18T15:24:59Z

LanthanumK: more

This is a page of comparisons and contrasts between ''English'' Wikipedia and Conservapedia. As I am a user on both sites, I can see the issues with both. This does not include Simple English Wikipedia.

==Benefits of Wikipedia==
*It is easier to edit articles as a new user.
*It is not so politically-oriented. It has a slight liberal bias while this site has a strongly conservative bias. There are many complete articles on science-related topics, for example.
*It is more complete.
*It is easier to upload photos.
*There is a bigger drive for complete and high-quality articles.

==Disadvantages of Wikipedia==
*It is not censored, showing bad pictures and bad language. One of the biggest users of profanity is a self-professed "devout Christian".
*There is much more vandalism than at Conservapedia. Hoaxes are relatively abundant, although there are not many less hoaxes over here.
*Neutral Point of View is arbitrary and a few editors make what they believe "neutral".
*Assume Good Faith is used as a hammer to beat people over the head in debates.
*Arguments in many places can be very petty.
*Many (though not all) articles about popular culture are rather useless.

===Hoax===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithium_nitrate&diff=351057656&oldid=316853102 Potassium permanganate is a strong oxidizing agent and cannot reduce nitrate to ammonia. Sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) does not contain any nitrate or lithium. Lithium nitrate, an oxidizing agent, cannot reduce water to hydrogen.]

==Benefits of Conservapedia==
*There is much less vandalism here.
*It has more family-friendly content.
*It has both conservative and liberal viewpoints in some articles which is more NPOV than Wikipedia.
*Petty debates over Manual of Style changes or what constitutes medical advice or whether people should notify others of grammatical errors in posts are nonexistent.
*Almost all of the admins have a similar viewpoint, so wheelwarring is nonexistant.
*More friendly debates are here. Opinions are welcome there.

==Disadvantages of Conservapedia==
*Editing for new users and IP's is restricted. The bar for entrance is set a little too high.
*A few hoaxes exist, although Wikipedia has hoaxes too.
*It is less complete.
*It mixes up morals (principles of right and wrong) with opinions (conservative v. liberal).
*It is more difficult to upload photos for legitimate users.

===Hoax===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Transition_metal&diff=prev&oldid=330929 Transition metals are not strong oxidizing agents; some are moderately strong reducing agents while others are weak reducing agents.]

==Similarities==
*Jimbo Wales influences everyone with his atheistic, liberal viewpoint; Andy Schlafly influences everyone with his religious, conservative viewpoint.
*POV debates are existent in both.
*A certain level of arbitrariness is present in the blocks of some people who do not blatantly violate the Commandments. (I do not have any names to name.)
*They both claim to be high quality.

User talk:LanthanumK/Wikipedia contrast

2010-11-18T15:17:48Z

LanthanumK:

User:LanthanumK/Wikipedia contrast

2010-11-18T15:14:16Z

LanthanumK: /* Disadvantages of Wikipedia */

This is a page of comparisons and contrasts between ''English'' Wikipedia and Conservapedia. As I am a user on both sites, I can see the issues with both. This does not include Simple English Wikipedia.

==Benefits of Wikipedia==
*It is easier to edit articles as a new user.
*It is not so politically-oriented. It has a slight liberal bias while this site has a strongly conservative bias.
*It is more complete.
*It is easier to upload photos.

==Disadvantages of Wikipedia==
*It is not censored, showing bad pictures and bad language. One of the biggest users of profanity is a self-professed "devout Christian".
*There is much more vandalism than at Conservapedia. Hoaxes are relatively abundant, although there are not many less hoaxes over here.
*Neutral Point of View is arbitrary and a few editors make what they believe "neutral".
*Assume Good Faith is used as a hammer to beat people over the head in debates.
*Arguments in many places can be very petty.

===Hoax===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithium_nitrate&diff=351057656&oldid=316853102 Potassium permanganate is a strong oxidizing agent and cannot reduce nitrate to ammonia. Sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) does not contain any nitrate or lithium. Lithium nitrate, an oxidizing agent, cannot reduce water to hydrogen.]

==Benefits of Conservapedia==
*There is much less vandalism here.
*It has more family-friendly content.
*It has both conservative and liberal viewpoints which is more NPOV than Wikipedia.
*Petty debates over Manual of Style changes or what constitutes medical advice or whether people should notify others of grammatical errors in posts are nonexistent.

==Disadvantages of Conservapedia==
*Editing for new users and IP's is restricted.
*A few hoaxes exist, although Wikipedia has hoaxes too.
*It is less complete.
*It mixes up morals (principles of right and wrong) with opinions (conservative v. liberal).
*It is more difficult to upload photos for legitimate users.

===Hoax===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Transition_metal&diff=prev&oldid=330929 Transition metals are not strong oxidizing agents; some are moderately strong reducing agents while others are weak reducing agents.]

Tin dioxide

2010-11-18T15:12:59Z

LanthanumK: redir

#REDIRECT [[Tin(IV) oxide]]

Stannic oxide

2010-11-18T15:12:37Z

LanthanumK: redir

#REDIRECT [[Tin(IV) oxide]]

Tin(IV) oxide

2010-11-18T15:12:15Z

LanthanumK: article

'''Tin(IV) oxide''', also known as '''stannic oxide''' or '''tin dioxide''', is a [[chemical compound]]. Its chemical formula is SnO2. The tin is in its +4 [[oxidation state]].

==Properties==
Tin(IV) oxide is a white solid. It dissolves in [[acid]]s easily. It is commonly found in the ground as [[cassiterite]], where it is dark because it is not pure.

==Preparation==
Tin(IV) oxide can be made by burning [[tin]] in air. It can also be made by burning [[tin(II) oxide]].

==Uses==
It is used in wires to detect gases that can burn. It is also used to make ceramics [[opaque]].

[[Category:Chemical Compounds]]

User talk:LanthanumK/Wikipedia contrast

2010-11-18T15:06:07Z

LanthanumK:

User:LanthanumK/Wikipedia contrast

2010-11-18T15:04:41Z

LanthanumK: /* Disadvantages of Wikipedia */

This is a page of comparisons and contrasts between ''English'' Wikipedia and Conservapedia. As I am a user on both sites, I can see the issues with both. This does not include Simple English Wikipedia.

==Benefits of Wikipedia==
*It is easier to edit articles as a new user.
*It is not so politically-oriented. It has a slight liberal bias while this site has a strongly conservative bias.
*It is more complete.
*It is easier to upload photos.

==Disadvantages of Wikipedia==
*It is not censored, showing bad pictures and bad language. One of the biggest users of profanity is a self-professed "devout Christian".
*There is much more vandalism than at Conservapedia. Hoaxes are relatively abundant, although there are not many less hoaxes over here.
*Neutral Point of View is used to push consensus by a few politically-oriented editors.
*Assume Good Faith is used as a hammer to beat people over the head in debates.
*Arguments in many places can be very petty.

===Hoax===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithium_nitrate&diff=351057656&oldid=316853102 Potassium permanganate is a strong oxidizing agent and cannot reduce nitrate to ammonia. Sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) does not contain any nitrate or lithium. Lithium nitrate, an oxidizing agent, cannot reduce water to hydrogen.]

==Benefits of Conservapedia==
*There is much less vandalism here.
*It has more family-friendly content.
*It has both conservative and liberal viewpoints which is more NPOV than Wikipedia.
*Petty debates over Manual of Style changes or what constitutes medical advice or whether people should notify others of grammatical errors in posts are nonexistent.

==Disadvantages of Conservapedia==
*Editing for new users and IP's is restricted.
*A few hoaxes exist, although Wikipedia has hoaxes too.
*It is less complete.
*It mixes up morals (principles of right and wrong) with opinions (conservative v. liberal).
*It is more difficult to upload photos for legitimate users.

===Hoax===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Transition_metal&diff=prev&oldid=330929 Transition metals are not strong oxidizing agents; some are moderately strong reducing agents while others are weak reducing agents.]

User talk:LanthanumK/Wikipedia contrast

2010-11-18T15:02:47Z

LanthanumK: stuff

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2010-11-18T14:39:37Z

LanthanumK: /* Why the first instance? */

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2010-11-17T21:43:56Z

LanthanumK: /* Why the first instance? */ new section

Cobalt(II) carbonate

2010-11-17T21:35:49Z

LanthanumK: article

[[File:Cobalt carbonate.JPG|thumb|Cobalt(II) carbonate on coffee filter]]
'''Cobalt(II) carbonate''', also known as '''cobaltous carbonate''', is a [[chemical compound]]. Its chemical formula is CoCO3. It contains [[cobalt]] and [[carbonate]] [[ion]]s. The cobalt is in its +2 [[oxidation state]].

==Properties==
Cobalt(II) carbonate is an indigo solid. It reacts with [[acid]]s, like all carbonates, to make a cobalt(II) [[salt]] and [[carbon dioxide]] gas. With [[hydrochloric acid]] it makes [[cobalt(II) chloride]]. It decomposes when heated strongly to [[cobalt(II) oxide]].

==Preparation==
It is made by reacting [[sodium carbonate]] with cobalt(II) chloride.

[[Category:Chemical Compounds]]

Ammonia

2010-11-17T21:32:56Z

LanthanumK: dissolves in water

'''Ammonia''' (NH3) is a colorless acrid [[chemical]]. It's [[normal melting point]] is -78 degrees [[Celsius]] and its [[normal boiling point]] is -33 degress Celsius, so it is a [[gas]] at room temperature and pressure. It dissolves in water to make a basic solution. It is a [[base|basic]] [[organic]] [[solvent]] which is used as a household cleaning fluid, a [[fertilizer]], a refrigerant, and in industrial processes.

== Sources ==
*The New American Desk Encyclopedia, Penguin Group, 1989

[[Category: Chemical Compounds]]

Frog

2010-11-17T21:31:54Z

LanthanumK: frog

[[File:Small pickerel frog on rock.JPG|thumb|Pickerel frog]]

'''Frogs''' and the similar [[toad]]s are a large family of hundreds of species of [[batrachian]] [[amphibians]], with a nearly worldwide distribution, absent only from high [[latitudes]] and remote oceanic islands. Even in deserts, species such as the water-holding frog, which is used as a drinking bottle by [[Australian Aborigines]],<ref>[http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/frogcensus/platy.html Water holding frog], South Australia Environmental Protection Agency 2004, accessed 26 May 2007</ref> are to be found, buried deep below the ground between the infrequent rains.

== Frogs in Science ==

Frogs have often been the subject of [[scientific]] experiment, whether in [[high school]] [[science]] class [[vivisection|dissections]] or [[Voltaire's]] 1766 experiments, in which he discovered that frogs hear with their legs. The discovery that a frog's [[leg]] will kick if an electrical shock is applied to it was the scientific basis behind the reflex tests now common in doctors' offices.

== Frogs in the Bible ==

The second of the Ten [[Egyptian plagues]] was of frogs. In [[Egypt]]ian culture, frogs were gods, and worshiped as such. [[God]] released enough frogs from the [[Nile]] so that the Egyptians could scarcely avoid stepping on them, as a direct affront to this worship practice.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Exodus|chap=8|verses=1-15}}</ref>

Leviticus declares them unclean to eat.

{{Bible quote|And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.|book=Leviticus|chap=11|verses=10|version=KJV}}

According to [[atheistic]] [[biologist]] [[Richard Dawkins]], the joints of the Lesser Spotted Weasel Frog continue to present a challenge to the [[Theory of Evolution]] insofar as their origin cannot be explained by gradual degrees.<ref>[http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/dawkins.html God's Gift to Kansas], Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal 2005, accessed 16 May 2008</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Amphibians]][[Category:Biblical Animals]]

Zinc

2010-11-17T21:30:46Z

LanthanumK:

{{Element | name=Zinc| symbol=Zn | anumber=30 | amass= 65.4 amu| noe=30 | class= | cstructure= Hexagonal | color= Bluish gray | date= 1746 | discname= Andreas Marggraf | origname= From the German word ''zinke'' (meaning jagged or tooth-like) | uses=Metal coating, rust protection (galvanization), [[brass]] | obtained=Zinc blende, calamine}}
'''Zinc''' is one of the oldest metals known to mankind.<ref>[ Zinc, Wide Usage of a Modest Metal: One of the Earliest Metals to have Appeared in Human History]</ref>
It is a [[element|chemical element]] with the symbol Zn and atomic number 30. In some historical and sculptural contexts, it is (or was) known as spelter. It is a [[transition metal]].

Zinc is most commonly used to [[galvanization|galvanize]] other metals or alloys to make them [[corrosion]] resistant. It is also a main constituent of many coins.
Zinc also is a [[trace element]] essential to life.

Zinc lozenges have been claimed to lessen the duration of the common cold, but
:As with more traditional over-the-counter medications, evidence that these products help reduce the duration of colds or lessen symptoms is mostly subjective, says Linda Lambert, cold and flu program director at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease.<ref> [http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-67520659.html Zinc may lessen length, severity of cold]</ref>

Small pieces of zinc can burn with a blue flame.
[[File:Zinc burning.JPG|thumb|Zinc burning]]
==Notes==

<references />
[[Category:Metals]]

Tin oxide

2010-11-17T21:29:40Z

LanthanumK: disambig

'''Tin oxide''' can refer to either of these [[chemical compound]]s:

*[[Tin(II) oxide]], SnO, black
*[[Tin(IV) oxide]], SnO2, white

{{disambig}}

Tin sulfate

2010-11-17T21:28:48Z

LanthanumK: redir

#REDIRECT [[Tin(II) sulfate]]

Stannous sulfate

2010-11-17T21:28:24Z

LanthanumK: redir

#REDIRECT [[Tin(II) sulfate]]

User:LanthanumK/Articles I created

2010-11-17T21:27:50Z

LanthanumK: some

User:LanthanumK/Wikipedia contrast

2010-11-17T21:25:49Z

LanthanumK: /* Hoax */

This is a page of comparisons and contrasts between ''English'' Wikipedia and Conservapedia. As I am a user on both sites, I can see the issues with both. This does not include Simple English Wikipedia.

==Benefits of Wikipedia==
*It is easier to edit articles as a new user.
*It is not so politically-oriented. It has a slight liberal bias while this site has a strongly conservative bias.
*It is more complete.
*It is easier to upload photos.

==Disadvantages of Wikipedia==
*It is not censored, showing bad pictures and bad language. One of the biggest users of profanity is a self-professed "devout Christians".
*There is much more vandalism than at Conservapedia. Hoaxes are relatively abundant, although there are not many less hoaxes over here.
*Neutral Point of View is used to push consensus by a few politically-oriented editors.
*Assume Good Faith is used as a hammer to beat people over the head in debates.
*Arguments in many places can be very petty.

===Hoax===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithium_nitrate&diff=351057656&oldid=316853102 Potassium permanganate is a strong oxidizing agent and cannot reduce nitrate to ammonia. Sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) does not contain any nitrate or lithium. Lithium nitrate, an oxidizing agent, cannot reduce water to hydrogen.]

==Benefits of Conservapedia==
*There is much less vandalism here.
*It has more family-friendly content.
*It has both conservative and liberal viewpoints which is more NPOV than Wikipedia.
*Petty debates over Manual of Style changes or what constitutes medical advice or whether people should notify others of grammatical errors in posts are nonexistent.

==Disadvantages of Conservapedia==
*Editing for new users and IP's is restricted.
*A few hoaxes exist, although Wikipedia has hoaxes too.
*It is less complete.
*It mixes up morals (principles of right and wrong) with opinions (conservative v. liberal).
*It is more difficult to upload photos for legitimate users.

===Hoax===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Transition_metal&diff=prev&oldid=330929 Transition metals are not strong oxidizing agents; some are moderately strong reducing agents while others are weak reducing agents.]

User:LanthanumK/Wikipedia contrast

2010-11-17T21:23:21Z

LanthanumK: /* Disadvantages of Wikipedia */ hoax

This is a page of comparisons and contrasts between ''English'' Wikipedia and Conservapedia. As I am a user on both sites, I can see the issues with both. This does not include Simple English Wikipedia.

==Benefits of Wikipedia==
*It is easier to edit articles as a new user.
*It is not so politically-oriented. It has a slight liberal bias while this site has a strongly conservative bias.
*It is more complete.
*It is easier to upload photos.

==Disadvantages of Wikipedia==
*It is not censored, showing bad pictures and bad language. One of the biggest users of profanity is a self-professed "devout Christians".
*There is much more vandalism than at Conservapedia. Hoaxes are relatively abundant, although there are not many less hoaxes over here.
*Neutral Point of View is used to push consensus by a few politically-oriented editors.
*Assume Good Faith is used as a hammer to beat people over the head in debates.
*Arguments in many places can be very petty.

===Hoax===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithium_nitrate&diff=351057656&oldid=316853102 Potassium permanganate is a strong oxidizing agent and cannot reduce nitrate to ammonia. Sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) does not contain any nitrate or lithium.]

==Benefits of Conservapedia==
*There is much less vandalism here.
*It has more family-friendly content.
*It has both conservative and liberal viewpoints which is more NPOV than Wikipedia.
*Petty debates over Manual of Style changes or what constitutes medical advice or whether people should notify others of grammatical errors in posts are nonexistent.

==Disadvantages of Conservapedia==
*Editing for new users and IP's is restricted.
*A few hoaxes exist, although Wikipedia has hoaxes too.
*It is less complete.
*It mixes up morals (principles of right and wrong) with opinions (conservative v. liberal).
*It is more difficult to upload photos for legitimate users.

===Hoax===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Transition_metal&diff=prev&oldid=330929 Transition metals are not strong oxidizing agents; some are moderately strong reducing agents while others are weak reducing agents.]

User:LanthanumK/Wikipedia contrast

2010-11-17T21:21:53Z

LanthanumK: /* Disadvantages of Conservapedia */ hoax

This is a page of comparisons and contrasts between ''English'' Wikipedia and Conservapedia. As I am a user on both sites, I can see the issues with both. This does not include Simple English Wikipedia.

==Benefits of Wikipedia==
*It is easier to edit articles as a new user.
*It is not so politically-oriented. It has a slight liberal bias while this site has a strongly conservative bias.
*It is more complete.
*It is easier to upload photos.

==Disadvantages of Wikipedia==
*It is not censored, showing bad pictures and bad language. One of the biggest users of profanity is a self-professed "devout Christians".
*There is much more vandalism than at Conservapedia. Hoaxes are relatively abundant, although there are not many less hoaxes over here.
*Neutral Point of View is used to push consensus by a few politically-oriented editors.
*Assume Good Faith is used as a hammer to beat people over the head in debates.
*Arguments in many places can be very petty.

==Benefits of Conservapedia==
*There is much less vandalism here.
*It has more family-friendly content.
*It has both conservative and liberal viewpoints which is more NPOV than Wikipedia.
*Petty debates over Manual of Style changes or what constitutes medical advice or whether people should notify others of grammatical errors in posts are nonexistent.

==Disadvantages of Conservapedia==
*Editing for new users and IP's is restricted.
*A few hoaxes exist, although Wikipedia has hoaxes too.
*It is less complete.
*It mixes up morals (principles of right and wrong) with opinions (conservative v. liberal).
*It is more difficult to upload photos for legitimate users.

===Hoax===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Transition_metal&diff=prev&oldid=330929 Transition metals are not strong oxidizing agents; some are moderately strong reducing agents while others are weak reducing agents.]

User:LanthanumK/Wikipedia contrast

2010-11-17T21:20:00Z

LanthanumK: some stuff

This is a page of comparisons and contrasts between ''English'' Wikipedia and Conservapedia. As I am a user on both sites, I can see the issues with both. This does not include Simple English Wikipedia.

==Benefits of Wikipedia==
*It is easier to edit articles as a new user.
*It is not so politically-oriented. It has a slight liberal bias while this site has a strongly conservative bias.
*It is more complete.
*It is easier to upload photos.

==Disadvantages of Wikipedia==
*It is not censored, showing bad pictures and bad language. One of the biggest users of profanity is a self-professed "devout Christians".
*There is much more vandalism than at Conservapedia. Hoaxes are relatively abundant, although there are not many less hoaxes over here.
*Neutral Point of View is used to push consensus by a few politically-oriented editors.
*Assume Good Faith is used as a hammer to beat people over the head in debates.
*Arguments in many places can be very petty.

==Benefits of Conservapedia==
*There is much less vandalism here.
*It has more family-friendly content.
*It has both conservative and liberal viewpoints which is more NPOV than Wikipedia.
*Petty debates over Manual of Style changes or what constitutes medical advice or whether people should notify others of grammatical errors in posts are nonexistent.

==Disadvantages of Conservapedia==
*Editing for new users and IP's is restricted.
*A few hoaxes exist, although Wikipedia has hoaxes too.
*It is less complete.
*It mixes up morals (principles of right and wrong) with opinions (conservative v. liberal).
*It is more difficult to upload photos for legitimate users.

Conservapedia:Image upload requests

2010-11-17T19:45:30Z

LanthanumK: /* Tin(II) oxide */

<center><big><big>'''Place Current Requests At The Bottom Please!'''</big></big></center>
{{clear}}

[[Conservapedia:Image upload requests/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
[[Conservapedia:Image upload requests/Archive 2|Archive 2]]
[[Conservapedia:Image upload requests/Archive 3|Archive 3]] 
[[Conservapedia:Image upload requests/Archive 4|Archive 4]]
[[Conservapedia:Image upload requests/Archive 5|Archive 5]]
[[Conservapedia:Image upload requests/Archive 6|Archive 6]]

----

'''Image uploading is a privilege, not a right. See [[Conservapedia:User rights]]. Requests for image uploads can be placed here, or simply ask [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=Upload someone with upload rights] or [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=sysop&limit=100. any Administrator].'''

NOTE: '''Do NOT upload AP Photos''' (Copyright - [[Associated Press]]). We don't have Fair use rights to those images.
See also - [[Conservapedia:Copyright]].

Users without image upload privileges can specify specific locations for their requested images with {{tl|Image request}}, which adds articles to [[:Category:Articles in need of an image]].
[[Category:Conservapedia]]

==[[Federalist Papers]]==
* <s>Need new [[File:The Federalist book title page.jpg]], from U.S. Library of Congress image: [http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/madison/images/vc16.jpg LOC-16], page shows year 1788 (MDCCLXXXVIII), proving papers printed as a book 1 year later. License: public domain, life of author plus 170 years (last to die: [[James Madison]] in 1836).</s>

[http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Fed_Papers1787_Cover.jpg Here you go.] --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 03:13, 17 June 2010 (EDT)

==[[Aswan Dam]]==
<s>Need new [[File:Aswan Dam Lake Nasser.jpg]], from U.S. NASA astronaut photo ISS017-E-20975: [http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/images/ESC/small/ISS017/ISS017-E-20975.JPG NASA-975], photo (made by NASA personnel) shows [[Aswan High Dam]], lower [[Aswan Dam]], Lake Nasser, [[Philae Temple]] island, 1st cataract of the [[Nile]], [[Arabian Desert]], Libyan Desert, etc. No hurry on this.</s> -[[User:CVeritas|CVeritas]] 21:27, 17 June 2010 (EDT)

-Done: [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Aswan.JPG] --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:13, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

==[[Joseph P. Lash]]==

<s>[http://www.geneaarchives.com/bacmresearch/affiliate/completeset/eroose2.jpg FBI memo] relating report from G-2 (Army Counterintelligence) claiming to have recorded a tryst between Communist youth leader Joseph Lash and First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt</s> [[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 14:16, 15 July 2010 (EDT)
:Done --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:28, 15 July 2010 (EDT) [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Eroose2.jpg]

==[[Ringo Starr]]==

<s>I need the image for an attempt to improve the [[Ringo Starr]] article.</s> {{Unsigned|Gamma287}}-- 14:08, 27 July 2010

:[http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Ringo_Starr.jpg Here you go.] --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:57, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

== [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]] ==
I generated ten graphs for [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]].

<s>http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3Me9X7ZKI14/TFfkfPe3wuI/AAAAAAAAAD4/OFZ-xI98ZYM/s1600/bcw-002.png</s>

<s>http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_3Me9X7ZKI14/TFfnWx0hLyI/AAAAAAAAAEA/6iZG4s7f2Zo/s1600/bcw-003.png</s>

<s>http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3Me9X7ZKI14/TFfn-EOpthI/AAAAAAAAAEI/sowEllNnqmM/s1600/bcw-004.png</s>

<s>http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3Me9X7ZKI14/TFgrC4KnBbI/AAAAAAAAAEQ/98_JyTvPyRM/s1600/bcw-005.png</s>

<s>http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_3Me9X7ZKI14/TFgrvASHDlI/AAAAAAAAAEY/afs_mOlJklM/s1600/bcw-006.png</s>

<s>http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3Me9X7ZKI14/TFgsPGXeERI/AAAAAAAAAEg/VrgIuZGbKOY/s1600/bcw-007.png</s>

<s>http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_3Me9X7ZKI14/TFgtI62GVBI/AAAAAAAAAEo/Jn46EbkGL24/s1600/bcw-008.png</s>

<s>http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_3Me9X7ZKI14/TFguBbXwegI/AAAAAAAAAEw/yGefBit2yl8/s1600/bcw-009.png</s>

<s>http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3Me9X7ZKI14/TFgvQJGurSI/AAAAAAAAAE4/COavGxsW6Sk/s1600/bcw-010.png</s>

I would appreciate if they could be named as stated, i.e., bcw-001.png, bcw-002.png, etc.

I forgot one, sorry:

<s>http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3Me9X7ZKI14/TFfi_t9bqdI/AAAAAAAAADw/tv412vyGi0E/s1600/bcw-001.png</s>

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:25, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

:All uploaded. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:33, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

Thanks! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:34, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

== [[Uncyclopedia]] ==

Hi. Please upload http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090115235635/uncyclopedia/images/b/bc/Wiki.png for fair use in the Uncyclopedia article. Thanks! [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] 16:55, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Done. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 21:08, 16 November 2010 (EST)

== [[Rick Scott]] ==
<s>[http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottforflorida/4517644139 For use on Rick Scott's article. This is the same Creative Commons image used at Wikipedia.]</s> [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 15:05, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

:Done [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Rick_Scott.jpg] Sorry for the delay in uploading. I will put in the page for you.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:20, 16 November 2010 (EST)

==White House Photostream Images==

<s>Please upload the following official White House photos:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/4891369859/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3860767412</s>

For use on the [[List of Obama First Family Vacations]] article.

:Done [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:4891369859.JPG] [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:3860767412.JPG] --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:15, 16 November 2010 (EST)

==[[Tin(II) oxide]]==
Have <s>a</s>some "homemade" public domain images that I would like to upload. It is on my computer. Thanks, --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 11:55, 16 November 2010 (EST)
:Send to our email account and I will upload. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:16, 16 November 2010 (EST)
::Will do --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 13:20, 16 November 2010 (EST)
:::A few more are there than just this photo. I think that all will be useful here. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 13:31, 16 November 2010 (EST)
::::Give me another day to upload all eight pics. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:56, 16 November 2010 (EST)
:::::Someday. Why is uploading so strictly guarded around here? --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 20:49, 16 November 2010 (EST)
::::::Several photos didn't upload properly. I am done with the rest. [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Small_pickerel_frog_on_rock.JPG] [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Cobalt_carbonate.JPG] [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Copper_ammonia_sulfate_original.JPG] [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Zinc_burning.JPG] Also, I don't know the reason behind the strict photo upload policy. I can only guess that since we allow liberals to edit here and some will attempt to be devious and upload porn. The liberal media such as the AP has demanded we remove pics from our site. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:15, 17 November 2010 (EST)
:Thanks. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 14:45, 17 November 2010 (EST)

==Political and historical figures==
<s>[http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g375/BishoiH/hitler_mufti.jpg Mufti of Jerusalem], historical copyright expired 
[http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g375/BishoiH/zapatero.jpg Zapatero] Fair use, not AP 
[http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g375/BishoiH/Castro.jpg Castro] Fair use, not AP </s>
{{unsigned|BishoiH}}
:Done [http://conservapedia.com/File:Hitler_mufti.jpg] [http://conservapedia.com/File:Zapatero.jpg] [http://conservapedia.com/File:Castro.jpg]--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:55, 16 November 2010 (EST)

User:LanthanumK/Wikipedia contrast

2010-11-17T16:43:04Z

LanthanumK: start page

This is a page of comparisons and contrasts between Wikipedia and Conservapedia. As I am a user on both sites, I can see the issues with both.

This page will be created a little later.

Oxidation state

2010-11-17T16:07:17Z

LanthanumK: article

The '''oxidation state''' of an atom or ion is the number of electrons that are taken away or given to it. Positive oxidation states are electrons taken away and negative oxidation states are electrons given. When [[tin]] dissolves in [[sulfuric acid]] to make [[tin(II) sulfate]], the tin loses two electrons and becomes a Sn2+ ion, which is tin in its +2 oxidation state. The hydrogen ion (H+) gains an electron from the tin, changing the oxidation state from +1 to 0. All elements have an oxidation state of 0.

==Related pages==
*[[Reducing agent]]
*[[Oxidizing agent]]

[[Category:Chemistry]]

Tin(II) sulfate

2010-11-17T16:04:00Z

LanthanumK: article

'''Tin(II) sulfate''', also known as '''stannous sulfate''', is a [[chemical compound]]. Its chemical formula is SnSO4. It contains [[tin]] and [[sulfate]] [[ion]]s. The tin is in its +2 [[oxidation state]].

==Properties==
Tin(II) sulfate is a white solid. It is one of the only tin(II) compounds that cannot be [[oxidation|oxidized]] to tin(IV). It reacts with [[base]]s to make [[tin(II) oxide]] hydrate, which is white.

==Preparation==
It is made by dissolving tin in [[sulfuric acid]].

==Related pages==
*[[Tin(II) chloride]]
*[[Tin(IV) oxide]]

[[Category:Chemical Compounds]]

Nonmetal

2010-11-17T15:57:43Z

LanthanumK: where they are

'''Nonmetals''' are [[elements]] on the [[periodic table of the elements|periodic table]] that do not fit into the description of [[metal]]s. Some of the [[metalloid]]s are sometimes considered to be nonmetals. Nonmetals are on the right side of the periodic table.

Nonmetals can be solids, liquids, or gases. They can be colorless or colored. Many of them are [[oxidizing agent]]s. Nonmetals react with metals to make [[salt]]s.

==Examples==
*[[Helium]] is a colorless gas.
*[[Chlorine]] is a green gas.
*[[Selenium]] is a black or gray solid.
*[[Phosphorus]] is a white waxy solid or a red powder.
*[[Bromine]] is a brown liquid.

[[Category:Elements]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]

Metal

2010-11-17T15:56:53Z

LanthanumK: some

'''Metals''' are shiny, [[solid]], and [[conductive]] [[element]]s. A common example is [[iron]]. They contrast with the [[nonmetal]]s. They are generally found on the left side of the [[periodic table of the elements|periodic table]]. Most [[elements]] are metals. Some metals are very strong and light, like [[titanium]] and [[aluminum]]. Others are soft and heavy, like [[lead]]. The [[Alkali Metal|alkali metals]] and [[alkaline earth metal]]s have to be stored in oil because they react with water and air very easily. Most metals are [[reducing agent]]s.

In [[astronomy]] and [[cosmology]], the term "metals" includes any elements other than [[hydrogen]] or [[helium]]. This is termed [[metallicity]].

[[category:chemistry]]
[[Category:Metals]]

Antimony

2010-11-17T15:54:55Z

LanthanumK:

{{Element | name=Antimony | symbol=Sb | anumber=51 | amass=121.760 amu | noe=51 | class=Pnictogen | cstructure=Rhombohedral | density=6.68 g/cm^3 | color=Bluish white or grey | stableisotopes=2 | date=Known since ancient times. | discname=Unknown | origname=Greek ''anti'' and ''monos'', "not alone". | uses=Various. | obtained=Stibnite, ullmanite, and valentinite. }}

'''Antimony''' ('''Sb''') is a [[toxic]], flaky, brittle [[element]] with the symbol Sb (Latin: stibium, meaning "mark") and atomic number 51. It does not react with air, but burns brightly when ignited. Since it is not a metal, antimony is a poor [[conductor]] of both [[heat]] and [[electricity]]. The stable form of antimony is a blue-white [[metalloid]]. Yellow and black antimony are unstable non-metals. Antimony is used in flame-proofing, paints, batteries, ceramics, enamels, as a hardener for lead and other metals, and in a wide variety of alloys, electronics, and rubber. The ancient Egyptians used black stibnite as eye make-up.

Antimony is a member of the "pnictogen" (group 15) of the periodic table. This is the area that has a metal near the bottom ([[bismuth]]) and some nonmetals near the top ([[nitrogen]]). Antimony in between -- It is one of the few elements which is neither a [[metal]] or a non-metal.

Antimony was known as an element at least as far back as the alchemists. It was first scientifically studied in 1707 by Nicolas Lemery.

[[Category:Elements]]
[[Category:Metals]]

Talk:Catholic views on creationism

2010-11-17T14:23:22Z

LanthanumK: rm double redir

#REDIRECT [[Talk:Catholic Views On Creation]]

Talk:Catholic views on creationism

2010-11-17T14:23:01Z

LanthanumK: Undo revision 828668 by LanthanumK (talk)

#REDIRECT [[Talk:Catholic views on creation]]

Talk:Catholic views on creationism

2010-11-17T14:22:33Z

LanthanumK: rm double redir

#REDIRECT [[Talk:Catholic Views on Creation]]